Re: Guile foreign object interface

[David Kastrup]

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> I am not so sure about about this one.  I think it's not accurate to
>> characterize beginning to replace a 25-year-old C API (SMOBs) as
>> "churn".
>
> I think the point is that there’s lots of code out there that rely on
> SMOBs and we shouldn’t break it overnight, precisely because that API
> is this old.
>
> Of course, I agree that pushing users towards an improved API is the
> right thing long term, no argument here.

Shrug.  LilyPond has all of its SMOB usage condensed into few C++
classes, so it is comparatively easy to migrate to a different API as
long as it offers comparable functionality.

Which it doesn't (namely the ability of marking objects reached through
STL-managed data structures).  So it's pretty pointless to "push users
towards an improved API" and hardly "the right thing".

-- 
David Kastrup